Scales of justice

The high-profile pair are among the large number of lawyers who have been handsomely remunerated from the public purse for the very failings in the legal aid system that Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is now attempting to curtail.

Contrary to the impression portrayed by the likes of Lord Goldsmith, the lawyer who advised Mr Blair in the critical months and weeks prior to the Iraq war, Mr Grayling is not denying legal aid to the most vulnerable, even though greater restrictions will now apply to criminal cases.

His intention is to limit the number of spurious judicial reviews lodged by town halls and other public bodies in the pursuit of civil cases, a tactic invariably deployed by councillors and others who are reluctant to take difficult decisions.

Despite the number 
of such cases rising from 6,692 in 2007 to 11,359 in 2011, only one in six was granted permission to proceed beyond the earliest stage – clear proof of the profligacy that is tolerated 
at present.

The benefits of Mr Grayling’s approach are three-fold. First, the onus will be on public institutions to pursue those cases 
that have the greatest likelihood of succeeding. Second, it should enable the legal system to operate more efficiently – one reason why bills for barristers have spiralled out of control is because it is difficult for judges to schedule cases to take place within a reasonable timeframe.

And, third, there is nothing to preclude the likes of Lord Goldsmith or Ms Booth from operating on a “no win no fee” basis – a concept that became embedded in the legal system after the latter’s husband swept to power in 1997.